 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gilley v. State3/27/1998
ty in sentences[,] was calculated to significantly restrict the trial court's traditionally broad sentencing discretion." Id. at 830 n.11. In explaining why sentencing Judges should be cautious when adjusting presumptive terms based on aggravating and mitigating factors, this court reiterated the underlying philosophy of presumptive sentencing:
When viewed in the light of the fundamental goals of the sentencing statutes, the rationale for this relatively inflexible sentencing framework is readily understood. If sentencing courts were permitted ... to deviate routinely and substantially from the presumptive terms imposed by law, the fundamental purposes of eliminating disparity and establishing reasonable uniformity in sentencing would be completely undermined.
Juneby, 641 P.2d at 833.
By enacting the presumptive sentencing statutes, the legislature wished to create a set of sentencing rules and expectations grounded on the objective facts of the defendant's criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the defendant's current offense. In our past decisions, this court has attempted to implement this legislative purpose.
For instance, in Hartley v. State, 653 P.2d 1052 (Alaska App. 1982), we rejected the contentions that a sentencing Judge was bound by the State's decision not to raise applicable aggravating factors, or that the State could purposefully withhold evidence that established aggravating factors. We declared: Once [the State] has obtained a conviction, ... the legislature has established specific guidelines governing sentencing. These guidelines are particularly important in determining presumptive sentences for those previously convicted of felonies. The decision to circumscribe sentencing discretion was in large part based upon a legislative belief that greater uniformity in sentencing should be sought and unjustified disparity eliminated. AS 12.55.005.
To allow the parties to ignore past convictions or aggravating and mitigating factors suggested by the evidence at trial or disclosed in a presentence report prepared by a probation officer would be to encourage unjustified disparity in sentencing. We therefore hold that the state has no discretion to suppress evidence of past convictions or aggravating or mitigating factors.
Hartley, 653 P.2d at 1056.
For the same reasons, we reject Gilley's suggested reading of AS 12.55.145(a)(1)(A). Gilley's assertion that sentencing Judges have the discretion to ignore prior felony convictions and to treat a third felony offender as a second felony offender is not only unsupported by the wording of the statute, it is also fundamentally at odds with the philosophy and goals of presumptive sentencing. Therefore, even though the commentary to AS 12.55.145(a) might suggest that sentencing Judges have such authority, we reject this suggestion and we adhere to the wording of the statute.
Given Gilley's prior felony convictions in 1993 and 1977, the superior court was obliged to sentence Gilley as a third felony offender. The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|